BEST-EVER Deposition Cross-Examination Seminars

BEST-EVER Deposition Cross-Examination Seminars Great Adverse Depositions: Principles & Principal Techniques (2-hr, 4-hr & 6.5-hr presentations) Robert Musante’s Mastering the Toughest-to-Craft Credibility Arguments (4-hr & 6.5-hr presentations) Attacking the Expert’s Opinion (4-hr & 6.5-hr presentations) Attacking the Expert’s Pedestal (4-hr & 6.5-hr presentations) Attacking the “I don’t know” “I don’t remember” & “I do remember” (2-hr & 3-hr presentations) If done right, the cross-examination of an adverse witness at deposition is an intellectually rigorous discipline … requiring the diligent and skillful application of logical rules that best exploit case theory opportunities and best attack case theory problems. Every litigator should have studied the discipline’s dozens of rules while still at law school. None did. Once at their law firms, they should have observed their firm’s experienced litigators effectively employing those rules in every adverse deposition. Few did. Thus, sadly, the vast majority of litigators practice for an entire career without ever truly understanding the transcendent importance of this syllogism: Trial is argument. Deposition is trial. Thus, deposition is argument. Through the use of highly-entertaining video clips of many high-profile cross-examinations, these seminars brilliantly elucidate and illustrate how to take great! adverse depositions … every time out. Teaches the logic & means to great adverse depositions. (2-hr, 4-hr & 6.5-hr presentations) Great Adverse Depositions: Principles and Principal Techniques Teaches the ends of great adverse depositions: arguments. (4-hr & 6.5-hr presentations) Mastering the Toughest-to-Craft Credibility Arguments • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Deposition cross-x: an intellectually rigorous discipline Battleships: the checklist of recurring deposition questions Four nearly-everybody-agrees deposition cross-x rules Grand Unified Theory of civil litigation Rationale re saving attacks for surprise at trial The can’t-be-beat argument against the stupidest orthodoxy Whack! defined & demonstrated Five advantages: deposition vs. trial cross-examiner A famous cross-examination analyzed Introduction of The Magnificent Seven When to ask leading questions at deposition Leading question rule exceptions: psychology & efficiency When the truth is not nearly enough Bluffing adverse deponent into an admission Deponent’s escapes from answers to leading questions Using rhetoric to intensify arguments Second famous cross-examination analyzed Reasoning questions & well-crafted risks (“pick a chair”) Interrogatory-like questions Universal questions & the limbo bar Third famous cross-examination analyzed Enumeration & labeling Looping prior answers into new questions Identifying a mediocre deposition in only sixty seconds Making the implied or hidden express using lexicography Making the implied or hidden express using logic The transfer of information rule & a frequent bad question The narrow question, calling for a narrow, safe answer Attacking question-dodging with high school grammar Attacking two answers in one question More re the sacred orthodoxy of saving attacks for trial The whole nine yards question Fifteen escapes from cross-examiner’s deception argument Conducting interviews vs. taking great adverse depositions A concluding test re critical listening skills • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Credibility, the every-case argument: deception vs. error Argument: Consider the source … already proven deceptive Deposition: cross-examiner’s laboratory Four no-major-talent-required arguments: -Inconsistent statements -Ability to see/hear flawed -Motive to deceive -Rebutted by information external to witness Three pressure-point arguments: -Engaged in unreasonable question-dodging -Unreasonably overstated or understated the truth -Flunked the good citizenship test Deposition admonitions: the right ones & their rationales Keeping score at the deposition re question-dodging Axiom to The Un-Reasonables The best-ever movie made relevant to cross-examination World-famous cross-examination analyzed -Leading questions to craft arguments -Rhetorication to intensify arguments -Ratiocination to challenge the resistant witness Argument: Witness’s action was not reasonably consistent with his knowledge and/or motivation Argument: Witness unreasonably deviated from a practice Argument: Witness adhered to an unreasonable practice Argument: Witness unreasonably deviated from a precedent Argument: Witness unreasonably deviated from a subsequent Argument: Witness was not reasonably knowledgeable Argument: Witness was not reasonably considering Attacking “I had a burden that justified my choice of action” Argument: Witness did not reasonably reason Argument: Witness’s memory was unreasonably poor Argument: Witness’s memory was unreasonably good Argument: Witness was not reasonably motivated Argument: Witness was not reasonably emotional Argument: Witness’s admission was necessity posing as virtue Evaluations of Great and Toughest-to-Craft seminars by senior litigators from major law firms: A killer seminar, a must for trial lawyers of every level of experience. John Lowe, Finnegan Henderson Excellent ... things I wish I’d known earlier. Musante is outstanding, thought-provoking, well-organized. His “rules” are more comprehensive, more well-reasoned and more sensible than those I’ve employed. Linda Birchall, Powell Goldstein Musante is outstanding, entertaining, rapid-fire, killer! Light years better than other full-day seminars. Excellent use of Power Points and real life examples. Outstanding practical content. Richard Roberson, Gardere Wynne Excellent! I have never had such a practical lesson in the mechanics of cross-examination. These are the first “rules” I’ve seen with the flexibility to apply to any scenario. Mark White, Vinson & Elkins No comparison to other seminars … tons of practical knowledge. Charlotte Warren, Carlton Fields Best seminar I have taken. Excellent teacher; engaging, great use of examples and technology. B. Sweeney, Seyfarth Shaw Musante is fantastic! This high-powered presentation will radically change your deposition practice for the better … forever. Even the most seasoned litigator will come away humbled. Ken Payson, Heller Ehrman Musante’s course revitalizes, synthesizes and energizes the art of taking depositions. This course is a must … no matter your experience level. Browning Marean, DLA Piper Could be the most valuable seminar I’ve taken. Excellent practical content. Excellent instructor. Ken Kula, Jones, Day Best seminar ever. The practical value of this seminar is enormous. I wish I had had this fifteen years ago. Mark Mathie, McKool Smith This is the cream of the crop in litigation seminars. Seth Shimmel, Holland & Knight Thousands more rave reviews at www.killerdepo.com Teaches how to attack the purported scientific merits of the expert’s opinion in every case … forever. (4-hr & 6.5-hr presentations) Attacking the Expert’s Opinion Teaches 50-plus attacks, in 11 areas, against the expert’s claims re expertise, independence, & investigative behavior. (4-hr & 6.5-hr presentations) Attacking the Expert’s Pedestal • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • World-class expert introduced Overview: deposition logic applied to experts When attacks against expert should be played at deposition Cross-examiner’s problems Expert’s pedestal & expert’s problems The structure of every opinion: O = R + 2F End point opinions & subordinate opinions, Bedrock findings and assumptions Critical listening skills (a quick test) The schematic every-case-forever chart introduced Five categories of expert opinions -Measurement of cause, effect & comparison opinions Ten types of expert rules -It’s probably a duck X & Y factors defined Scientific vs. experiential rules (science vs. art) Non-expert rules & the cloak of expertise Expert’s rule’s essential factors (“necessary” & “sufficient”) Expert’s weighing process Critical listening skills (2nd quick test) Two incredibly important –easy to master– techniques Attacks against expert’s X factors The certainty scale & two archetypal arguments Six sources of assumptions Attacking expert’s findings derived through expert methods Attacking expert’s findings derived thru non-expert methods Expert’s self-anointed pedestal-status (3rd quick test) Expert’s three –and only three– attacks vs. Y factors Numerical hypotheticals: bright line test v. subjective grey Freud vs. Frasier (expert’s psychological insights) Occam’s Razor (the law of parsimony) Musaccam’s Razor & the weak links in expert’s opinion Attacking expert’s double standard re career Attacking expert’s double standard re case Coda: Don’t squander the deposition of opposing expert • Curriculum Vitae attacks, including: -False claim of achievement -Professional shortcoming omitted or disguised -Expertise tangential to the contested expert issue • Marketing attacks, including: -Hucksterism; undignified marketing -Marketing targets too one-sided • Forensic Business attacks, including: -Quality-control sacrificed to increase volume -Exceeded scope of expertise -No verifiable track record re accurate opinion-making • Prior Court Performance attacks, including: -Daubert challenges & judicial findings of misbehavior • Relationship with Opposing Attorney attacks, including: -Biased in favor of opposing attorney/party -Deviation from practice re arm’s-length relationship • Time & Billing Records attacks, including: -None, lost, or incomplete, yet still paid fee -Too many hours (churning);: too few hours (faking) -Double standard: fee favors for opposing attorney • Investigation attacks, including: -Relied on assembly-line (concealed that reliance) -Reviewed too little info: explored few lines of inquiry -Deviation from practice re investigative protocol • Investigative Notes attacks, including: None, lost, or destroyed: hiding the ball & wiggle-room • Report-Making & Opinion-Testing attacks, including: -Report co-authored (co-authorship concealed) -Road-tested with another expert and/or opposing attorney -Slanted word choice; omission of weakening info • Evaluation of Cross-Examiner’s Expert attacks, including: -Expertise, integrity, investigation & conclusions • Deposition Performance attacks, including: -Dodged questions’ key words; filibustered answers -Played “What’s it mean?” game; accepted coaching Evaluations of Opinion and Pedestal seminars by senior litigators from major law firms: Best seminar I’ve been to. With the constructs learned here, I will have a more organized and pointed game plan. Sharon Douglass Mayo, Arnold & Porter Sophisticated and persuasive framework for attacking expert opinions. Great job of providing an analytical framework for a critically important skill that is commonly shrouded in mystery by experienced practitioners. Steve Rasch, Thompson & Knight The most useful combination of rules, concepts and examples of expert cross-examination of any of the seminars on deposition-taking I have attended. Don Kemna, Shook, Hardy & Bacon Musante gives David a game plan against all expert Goliaths. Carlos J. E. Guzman, Kazan McClain Great teacher ... seminar content very helpful in breaking down elements of every expert’s testimony. Kristin Schumacher, Perkins Coie Musante is excellent. In all CLE seminars, there is a direct correlation between the value of the seminar and the number of attendees who remain until the end of the day. Here the room was just as full at the end of the day as it was at the start of the day. Dan L. Johnson, Bullivant Houser Musante is dynamic; a down-to-earth presentation of well-organized material. Musante makes a compelling case for a pattern that would be applicable to every expert opinion. Julie Pittman, Burr & Forman If you suspect that your expert deposition technique has gone stale … Musante’s seminar is the best eye-opening cure I know. Mitchell Axler, Squire Sanders Top seminar of all I’ve seen. Musante is highly qualified and very entertaining. Don’t teach my competitors. Tom Schroeder, Womble Carlyle Thousands more rave reviews at www.killerdepo.com Attacking the “I don’t know” “I don’t remember” & “I do remember” Teaches how best to attack 3 tough-to-attack answers; the main focus is on the toughest: “I don’t remember.” (2-hr & 3-hr presentations) In-House Seminars These law firms have sponsored in-house presentations of one, or more, of the seminars. Litigation associates and partners, alike, attended and learned the discipline of deposition cross-examination … each for the first time. Alschuler Grossman Andrews Kurth Archer Norris Arnold Porter Blackwell Sanders Blaney McMurtry Bracewell & Giuliani Brown Bain Buchanan Ingersoll Bullivant Houser Burr Forman Calwell Law Carlton Fields Connelly Sheehan Curiale Dellaverson Day Casebeer, Dorsey Whitney Envision Law Felice Brown Finnegan Henderson Gardere Wynne Gray Cary Greenberg Traurig Hancock Rothert Hanson Bridgett Heller Ehrman Hogan Hartson Hoge Fenton Holland Hart Howard Rice Jennings Strouss Jones Day Jones Skelton Kazan McClain Krieg Keller Lane Powell Lightfoot Franklin Locke Liddell Lowndes Drosdick McCormick Barstow McKool Smith McNamara Dodge Miller Nash Minden Gross Minyard Morris Morgan Lewis Nixon Peabody Nossaman Guthner O'Melveny Myers Pardieck Law Perkins Coie Powell Goldstein Sacramento DA Seyfarth Shaw Shook Hardy Skjervan Morrill Susman Godfrey Thompson Knight USPS Law Vinson Elkins Wilson Sonsini Womble Carlyle • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Deposition logic & Whack! Crucial for cross-examiner get to “yes,” “no,” or “maybe” Test re critical listening skills The several meanings of “I don't know” Four lines of attack against “I don’t know” Why “I don’t remember” is the toughest answer to attack Adverse deponent’s 3 dishonest motives for “forgetting” Determining CE’s preference re “bigger” memory Lines of attack against “I don’t remember,” including: -Recency, a relative concept -Importance of subject to witness -Witness’s genuine poor memory re important subject -Invited to act -Revived memory -Triggered emotion or attitude -Prior training/experience in subject -Novelty -Similar person able to remember -Witness performed even greater feats of memory -Selective memory -Witness’s this-case motive to “forget” Famous cross-examination analyzed Firewalling the limits of witness’s memory Three outcomes that witness controls Memory admonitions Two exceptions re keeping memory of bad info “small” Memory too-good-to-be-true & a memory test Axiom re “I do remember” Lines of attack Famous cross-examination analyzed Instance vs. custom Gist vs. paraphrase vs. quote TELEPHONE TUTORIALS (Satisfaction guaranteed.) Send 15 to 20 continuous transcript pages from a difficult adverse deposition, preferably one of an opposing party. Provide a brief explanation regarding who is who and what you were striving to prove or attack. Select pages that deal with a heart-of-the-case subject, presumably where you and the deponent were at your respective “bests.” Avoid pages heavy with attorney colloquy. In a 60 or 90 minute phone call (that you are much encouraged to tape-record), you will be taught a dramatically better way to have taken that deposition … and all future adverse depositions. Expect a candid critique … and a lot of insight. For more information, send an email to musante@killerdepo.com. Please use “telephone tutorial” in the subject line. Robert Musante is the country’s foremost teacher of deposition cross-examination skills. A 1978 graduate of the University of California, Boalt Hall Law School, he tried jury trials for 23 years, first as a prosecutor, then as a civil attorney. In addition, he taught trial practice at Boalt Hall for 16 years, 1984 through 1999. In 1993, he created the first of several killerdepo seminars. Since then, to great acclaim (see 1,000s of rave reviews at www.killerdepo.com), he has taught more than 30,000 litigators the discipline of deposition cross-examination. More than 120 law firms, offices of state attorneys general or bar groups, in 39 states, have sponsored one or more of his seminars. Robert Musante’s Seminars P.O. Box 529 Alamo, CA 94507 925.946.9177 musante@killerdepo.com www.killerdepo.com